Only 2 more weeks of Nostalgiaween!! What would you like NC to review on a future episode? Support this week's charity - www.redcross.org/ Nostalgiaween intro animation by Kritken - th-cam.com/users/TheKritken Nostalgiaween intro music by Jayhan - th-cam.com/users/jayhanthemusician
I actually think Richard Roxburgh did an excellent job as Dracula. He is neither a heartless tyrant nor a mentally deranged clown (most villains these days are one of these two types). Instead, he is a surprisingly effective combination; an ambitious megalomaniac who does want to take over the world, but also wants to have fun and let out his frustrations in the process.
@@rezalustig6773 Interesting, didn't know these details. In all movies I saw him, I think he did a fine job, usually as a villain. But they were mostly flawed movies.
Van Helsing said "Requiescat en pace", or "rest in peace" in Italian, when Jekyll hit the ground. I actually don't speak Italian, I've just played lots of ezio's assassin's creed games.
Latin, honey. Latin. That's also what the initials RIP stand for, though it did conveniently transfer over into English well enough. (Remember in the game it was a traditional prayer that dates back way before Ezio)
@@echoskelet I mean, on some level I agree with you, but this isn't the case I would use to prove it seeing as OP is actually wrong. Assassin's Creed clearly did their research on a number of things, but aside from the in-game wall of text when you pass a certain landmark, I REALLY wouldn't get your history lessons from them.
Frankenstein is actually a legit way to refer to refer to “the monster” in the original book the monster names himself Frankenstein because “we are all named after our fathers”
Jessica Peters Not exactly. He says to Frankenstein “I am the Adam of your labors”. Whether he meant that as his name or not is ambiguous. There is some evidence that Mary Shelley never meant the monster to have a name.
Van Helsing is honestly a guilty pleasure of mine. If I ever see it on the tv I'll stop and watch it in its entirety. I still love the line: "If you're going to kill someone then kill them, don't waste your time just talking about it!".
@@RickyUzumaki993 He cuts out a lot of scenes that explain some issues he has as well. Critic bashes the movie calling the monster Frankenstein even though it was established that he doesn't like to be called a monster and considers the doctor his father, which technically makes him another Frankenstein in the family line.
I never understood the hate for this movie and I never will. Even if the effects weren't that great, the art direction and style was actually amazing and somewhat unique. Dracula is such an interesting character in this too.
There could be a couple reasons for this. At least that’s just me thinking out loud. The Mummy (Brendan Fraser starring) is awesome. It’s not perfect, but it was such a fun movie. When it came out, that’s what most people thought despite some of the negative criticism. Nowadays, people might not like it because; it’s a remake, CGI doesn’t hold up, character tropes that have been around for a long time, and probably more. If you want to hear someone talk positive about The Mummy, check out StitchedTogetherPics video on it. He has a series called ‘boots to reboots’ and compared this movie with its original.
Yes!! The Werewolves was the best part of Van Helsing. Amongs other thing like.. Kate Beckinsale being hot or Richard hilarious Dracula or... The sidekick. 😂
I remember the running gag of Carl not actually being a monk and being able to do certain things monks weren't supposed to do actually being hilarious. Besides the cursing joke mentioned here, there is a pretty great scene where Carl saves a village woman from Dracula's children after they all die. She wants to know how she can repay him. He whispers something to her. She tells him he can't do that as he's a monk. He admits that he's actually only a friar. Sure enough, in the next scene, they're having sex together.
If you think about it, carl is really the hero of this movie. he supplies van helsing with all the cool gadgets that save him time and again (crossbow, silver bullets), saves (and gets) the girl while van helsing kills his love interest, figures out what can kill dracula, kills more vampires in a single scene than van helsing killed in the entire movie (the light bomb), assisted in killing igor and one of the brides, and was totally ready to put werewolf helsing down until he realized he'd been given the cure. carl is the hero here, but van helsing got all the credit.
TO BE HONEST, in the book, Jekyll, as Hyde, was very aware of what he was doing. Hyde wasn't a new personality who rised everytime he drinked his potion, it was a sort of new body form.
It doesn't matter if the borders were different. Victor was not in Romania. I don't think he even went there when he wondered the wilds. I believe he went to Norway.
Transylvania would have been like 10% Germans at that time. *@Nabeel Work* After the Soviet Union collapsed and the Romanians put a bullet in their dictator's head they... suggested it might be in the best interest of the Germans to leave. Many did and are now back in Germany. EDIT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans_of_Romania
This movies werewolf design is my favorite in my opinion. It looks threatening and seems like a actual hybrid of wolf and man unlike some films *cough cough* twilights abominations *cough cough*
I mean they call them “werewolves” when a werewolf is a half man half wolf and has no control over the change at all unlike that crappy film series “werewolves
NargacugaKing technically they are just called werewolves, but it was revealed in the 4th book they are not really werewolves but shapeshifters that turn into wolves and they are called werewolves because it is just easier. It is even revealed that there are actual werewolves that are more like what you described, but that was something that was cut out of the movies.
MonsterJunkie the Harry Potter design was decent not scary due to looking like a starved stray poodle but I prefer large powerful threatening werewolves that look like a half man beast
The fight between Igor and friar Carl was lovely. Two dudes with no skill in a fight to the death, just to show the difference between the super powered and skilled to us normal folk.
Say what you want this movie has the absolutely best werewolf design ever. And at least the Frankenstein creature is at least close to the original story Also fun fact in the original novel: Hyde WASN’T a spilt personality, I’m not kidding. The potion only changed Jekyll’s appearance and just allowed him to act out his more darker urges
kamenriderreaper Heh, that seems to be the most recurring error in each and every Jekyll and Hyde adaptation. ( Well, maybe Pallance's was not that bad actually...) "Boo hoo, Hyde is the Monster, not me!" I believe this choice is Made to make Jekyll more Sympathetic,but people seem to forget that he is a Hypocrite, just like anyone during the Late Victorian era! We are not supposed to feel sorry for him!
Except that's wrong, Hyde was indeed another personality - it's what leads to jeckyls attempts to restrain him and keep him in check Now whether this is an analogy to him losing himself to his darker desires is up for debate ( I think it is) bit it doesn't change what's actually written
marduk ishenhougher no he wasn’t, Jekyll’s letter at the end of the story makes it clear that HE was In control the whole time. Every time he took the serum it only changed his outer appearance but continual use made it so he had to keep taking it in order to change back, however he was starting to run out, that’s why he locked himself away so that no one would learn the truth. www.tor.com/2012/06/22/what-everybody-gets-wrong-about-jekyll-and-hyde/
Robert Currie I think with dumb movies it is a bit hit or miss for everybody. I personally like Van Helsing way more than I, Frankenstein (... haven’t seen Venom yet, but based in the trailer not too much into it).
25:31 "...and what should be really cool is so ridiculously fake, you'd swear its a Michael Bay reboot of Hotel Transylvania!" Shhh! Don't give him any ideas!
This movie isnt perfect But it has my favorite interpretations of Dracula and Werewolves Dracula looks like a giant demonic bat and The black Werewolf is what a Werewolf should look like
Rade Ilić that one looks good too, certain has a savage and vicious look to it. Some times it makes me think of the coloring and facial look from An American Werewolf in London.
Ooh! Hypocrite! And unlike the Frankenstein monster, Billy and jigsaw aren't public domain (dozens of movies and shows accidentally refer to the monster as Frankenstein, of course most of them are just merely references).
Honestly my favorite was when Anna was fighting Dracula's wife and Anna said " if your gonna kill someone, don't spend all your time talking about it." I always thought it was funny.
10:00 I'm gonna be honest with ya, Dracula's brides are my favorite part of this movie. From their lines, to their monster form to their human form. If I ever become a vampire, first order of business is to get myself a set of those...
I've actually based the D&D campaign I'm running off this movie. When you take out the underwritten main characters you're left with cool settings, concepts, creature designs, gadgets, and a fairly minimal plot that leaves lots of wiggle room for players to do their own thing. It's perfect!
You genuinely like the creature designs in this film!? There was not one I thought was done well. The only interesting idea was the see-through brain and heart, but the character design negated that coolness.
Will not apologize for my love for this movie. The whole thing felt like a love letter to the old *Universal Monster* movies. And some of the creature designs are top notch.
I watched this film as a kid, loved it back then and still love it. It has the best CGI werewolves ever made in Hollywood history, with splendid soundtracks and a decent story. Extremely underrated film.
@@Blaze-xe8cl The one in Harry Potter looked like he had the mange and lost all his fur. I wish they had shown Hugh Jackman as a werewolf more in this movie. The best looking werewolf on film that I have ever seen! (Well, Michael Jackson in Thriller looked awesome, but also looked more like a cat.)
Not wanting to be a pedant (who am I kidding...), but in the book, Frankenstein refers to the creature as his son. So technically, if the creator thinks of his creation as his own offspring, then the creature can also be called Frankenstein.
There's something deeply amusing to me about the idea of a version of Robocop who's self-aware of, and wholly comfortable in, his own pedantry. I may need to get out more.
Pineappolis Dead or alive you’re coming with me. Although, if you ARE dead, the actuality of the situation is that you’ll be travelling in the back of a coroner’s van or ambulance and not strictly “with” me. But I’m sure you get the metaphor. Thank you for your cooperation.
"The story is an excuse for cartoon action scenes" And is that a con? I mean, it's dumb and it's not a brilliant movie, but is freaking fun as hell. Any time it's on TV I watch it all the way through, it's never boring and has a really great atmosphere.
Well yeah it is a con actually. If you want to be a fun cheesy action horror movie with iconic horror monsters, just go all out! Don’t try to be “Oh so deep and tragic” it’s totally inconsistent with the tone you’re going for.
@@dancingcarapace Not really, X-men Origins was bottom of the barrel horrible for me, uninteresting plot, poorly shot action scenes, a waste of Gambit, terrible effects etc I actually enjoyed The Wolverine, i liked its gritty realism, how they weakened Logan to increase the tension, the action scenes (except for the silver samurai one) were pretty damn good and had this realism to it. But yeah, the Japanese characters are pretty bland
@@razzyrazberries it aged awesomely, It's NOT a horror or scary or whastever movie. It's STRICTLY entertainment for people who say, "i can deal with a detective movie that has supernatural elements. Like an over the top SUPERNATURAL in movie form" Shit was awesome. The shit IS awesome Nice movie to lay back and chill with every so often and always around Hallows eve
This is my favorite monster movie of all time and unlike most monster movies these days it actually has plot instead of not scary jump scares and senseless gore. Yes Underworld has gore but it has plot
Thanks for pointing out the "I'm a strong independant woman and don't need to be saved by no man!" speech that is always quickly followed by said woman playing stereotypical damsel/love interest the rest of the film. It happens so often and drives me nuts. Perfect example of studios trying to pander to new mentalities WITHOUT actually changing any of their characters or plot points. XD EDIT: And I should add that I actually say this as a fan of the damsel trope. I LOVE a good damsel (male or female) but I don't love said damsel confidently demanding that they're strong, INSISTING on it and then being immediately proven a hypocritical liar. See, not everyone needs to be an action hero capable of taking out hordes of enemies--that's the protagonist's job--so damsels don't need to act like they can do that as well. They should just be weak in action scenarios but cool in others be it strategy, personality, connection to main character, etc. A good example of this would be Princess Leia from Star Wars. She's a damsel, but I rarely see anyone complain about it since she's also an interesting character with other "non-actiony" strengths. I mean, the freaking woman gets tortured by her captors and then STILL lies to them in order to protect her people. What a badass! I.e: The damsel trope doesn't HAVE to be annoying or used badly like it was in this film. Just don't try to have your characters pretend to be something they're not.
Exactly! I hate this tropes that show up whenever some out of touch hack writer tries to write a "Strong Female Character" that's neither strong, nor have any character. Bonus points if she also has to spout the old "I'm not like other girls" line, because the writers are dumb enough to think bashing all the women who isn't the female lead is empowering somehow.
They're there to be eye candy to the men in the audience in addition to make the male hero look good in comparison, because if she's introduced as this cool sexy ninja fighter whatever, the male hero will look even cooler when he surpasses her fighting prowess and has to rescue her in the third act, and no matter how aloof or independent she is at the start of the movie she always turn around by the third act and falls for the hero.
The most unfortunate truth is female characters are just like the ones in Patch Adams.... Fuck you Hollywood. No thanks to you we still have dumbasses in distress!
And this movie still reigns supreme as far as having the best looking Werewolf ever. Period. Nothing was better, even the fight between Him & Dracula. Absolutely incredible.
I was in the 4th grade, and after school my father surprised me by picking me up from school and taking me, by bus, to the Huntington Park area in Los Angeles, way back when it still had great movie theaters. This movie came out on my birthday, it was one of the greatest, most perfect days I ever spent with my Pops. I love this movie, it has a soft spot in my mind.
Entertaining, sure. At least as the "once every 3 years" kind of entertaining. A good movie though? Not really. (TL:DR at the bottom) There are some cool ideas here and there, and the monsters are actually pretty good(they have a fair bit of personality and "design" and motivation, compared to the humans of the movie). The only human character with a decent amount of personality is actually Carl. He is the fish out of water and tells us so. He is the one struggling with his beliefs and have to change his view on the world(monsters are bad -> some monsters are good). Van Helsing only changes to advance the plot. It is basically a "chase the McGuffin" movie throughout, with the McGuffin changing every few scenes. Remember Temple of Doom? The McGuffin was the holy stones, yet you didnt feel that was the center of the movie or the only drive force for the characters. There was a lot of other things going on. The stones were simply the initial catalyst. In Van Helsing the main motivator changes all the time. It is "catch the werewolf", to "kill vampires", to "find the secret layer" to "save Frankenstein's monster" to "get the antidote". It is like a game, but your main objective for your character changes every 15 minutes, so there is no time for character developement. Sorry, but your princess is in another castle. If Van Helsing(the character) had more of a Solomon Kane feel to(a man tormented by his past, reluctantly seeking redemption), the character would have much more weight and depth. His actions, when he choose to kill, when he choose to help, would be much more meaningful. The only real piece of character developement for Van Helsing is very early in the movie(he kills monsters and isnt popular, but doesnt really care much about that) and in the very end(he is cursed and has been for a long time). Nothing about fears or hopes. We know very little of him as a character. It might as well have been Abraham Lincoln running around there. So yeah, the movie has some fun action scenes, a few funny lines, and some of the monster scenes are pretty great. This makes it a fun watch every now and then. But it is not a movie you would watch several times over a few months, or remember for the characters. One of the few lines I remember from the movie is: "But you are supposed to die! - "I want to live", between Carl and Frankenstein's Monster, as that scene actually told us quite a bit about those 2. From the main character himself, I cant quote a single line of dialogue, and I have watched this movie 5 times. TL:DR Superficial movie with superficial characters. Some fun ideas and decent monster design/acting, but the main character is a piece of cardboard. It could easily have been any other monster hunter, or even someone not supposed to hunt monsters(Abraham Lincoln). There never was an instant where I thought, "wow, I wish they would make a sequel, because I want to see more of this".
To be fair Billy Is a medium that jigsaw use to hide His identidy (like the cassette recordings or the pig face) so its still jigsaw with or without the puppet (hell the puppet names was never mentioned in the movies). Here the monster Is not dr Frankenstein identidy its His own creation, thats why he needs to be called the Frankensteins monster
If we're going to use technicalities, then calling the monster Frankenstein is not necessarily incorrect. As he is a being brought to life by Dr Frankenstein, he could very much be considered Frankenstein's son. And most children take on their father's name after being born. So calling him Frankenstein should be fine.
@@trekend3161 but even if we are going to the original story he Was never a "him" and More like an "it". So call him by what IT isn't in a "serious" story don't fit that well.
@@trekend3161 i mean when does in the movie IT they call the clown pennywise outside from him when he was chatting with georgie. Nobody he Is a monster with no real form (okey he Is a spider but let downs outside) that can't have a Propper name outside from IT.
If they want to reboot the franchise and make it a Cinematic Universe, just Update the classics with Modern technology and connect the movies loosely with the Doctors in each movie being related to Van Hellsing. The young doctor that helps kill the Wolf man, Young Van Hellsing. Van Hellsing is already in Dracula. Etc.
Fun fact: I know, putting Castle Frankenstein in Transsylvania is incorrect, BUT there IS a large part of the Romanian population that actually does consist of the descendants of Germans that hop-skipped over there. Or rather were actively transferred there as settles in the middle ages. Which is also why the famous Transsylvania region is sometimes called by its German name Siebenbürgen. So historically, Frankenstein COULD have been Transsylvanian.
I'm going to toss my hat into the ring of people that absolutely LOVED this movie. The absolute BEST werewolves in movies since American Werewolf, the foley design was amazing, the musical score, cinematography, and OMG the theater roared when lightning brought Drac's spawn to life, that lightning strike and electrical wave effect in Surround was heartstopping. Certainly it's not perfect, but this is a Halloween staple for me. This movie was exactly what it wanted to be: a summer popcorn blockbuster. I didn't expect Bridges Of Madison County in my Stephen Sommers movie.,
THANK YOU! It's no where near perfect but it's the best modern monster crossover movie we'll get for a long time. I love every inch of cheese and action in this haha.
Agreed. The people who made this movie wanted to have fun. You can tell in all of their performances. They wanted fun, and I think that they succeeded.
@@cleverpsyche115 Dont have to agree just like what you like and I'll like the films I do. 👍 Some people like original Dracula, some like Invisible man and god dare I say it some people liked the 2017 mummy and I like the crossover story that is Van Helsing because its fun cheese. If we all liked same movies we'd all be sheep lol.
I loved the Mummy and the Mummy Returns as well(shame they never made a sequel after that) THERE WAS NO 3RD MUMMY MOVIE OR NO REBOOT WITH A MIDGET SCIENTOLOGIST.
That’s one of those movies that I really don’t see the hatred for. At worst it’s just okay, I even liked that other one, The Wolverine so maybe I have a blind spot for X-men.
@@IAmChadBroseph I agree. And if anyone uses the argument of what they did to Deadpool, my counter argument is that the Deadpool Wolverine fights is not actually the 1 from the beginning of the movie, but a clone of the original after he went rogue in those sexy red spandex.
The transformation animation wasn't bad for it's time. I remember there is some interesting bonus footage of the step by step animation, when it stops being the actor and cgi
Honestly, I was almost 100% okay with this film in it's entirety. The characters all do a good job, story is halfway decent, the tools and weapons Van Helsing use are extremely cool, and the CGI is passable, at least. Fun popcorn flick, if anything. But... those last 5 minutes. The 'looking up in the skies and seeing dead people' was so goddamn cringe-worthy, it ruined the whole movie for me. Like, someone read that in the script draft and was like "Yeah, that sounds great! Put it in the movie!"
If you enjoyed any of the Sean Connery - Bond films, you’ll enjoy this movie. That’s how I described it to people, Because that’s all it is, It it modernized, with supernatural creatures, and a story that relies on you knowing the backstory.
4:30 There use to be a lot of Germans who lived in Transylvania. They were called the Transylvanian Saxons. During the reign of Vlad "The Impaler" Dracula (The inspiration for Count Dracula) many of the Transylvanian Saxons where persecuted.
BTW, they establish that unlike most vampires Dracula is impervious to weapons such as stakes and crosses but only a werewolf can kill him. That's why he has the cure. Also, the monster was created by Dr Frankenstein which pretty much makes him his son. He even refers to the Doctor as "father" so why wouldn't he also be called Frankenstein? Make more sense then just calling him "monster" all the damn time. And the reason Van Helsing doesn't want Anna to go with him or put herself in danger is because if she, the last of her family, dies before Dracula is killed none of her families souls will enter heaven. They establish that in the scene where Val Helsing is receiving his mission. Another thing, why wouldn't God have the ability to erase someone's memories? He's God. He's omnipotent. I know Steven Summers is hard to follow, but one still needs to pay attention. Personally, this movie is a guilty pleasure for me.
I see nothing wrong with liking this movie. You're points are 100% percent correct and I think doug is too busy talking with his brother when they watch the film to listen when crucial info is given.
Actually Doug, about the monster's name... there's a little known line from the original novel where the monster says that he thinks of Dr. Frankenstein as his "father," which makes sense that he'd take his name himself. Also, the Doctor referred to him as Adam as he was supposed to be the first of a new perfect type of human (IT WASN'T CLICHE BACK WHEN MARY SHELLY DID IT!) so if you wanna get technical the Monster's name is Adam Frankenstein.
i mean he was made by Victor Frankenstein so i would say giving him the last name frankenstien is correct regardless of whether or not the monster even considers Victor his father.
four years late to this, but I adore this movie. One of my favorites for a multitude of reasons. One is the collection of monsters which all feel like they get their time in lime light unlike the actual classics that just brought Dracula in than tossed him under the bus after like twenty minutes for larry talbet, twice! The Frankenstein monster actually talks and is intelligent like he is in the book but works more as a tragic figure who wants to experience the world but hasn't seen much of the darker side, a nice mix of on book and off book. The werewolf is a nice plot element and chasing menace. And then we have Dracula, I freaking love this dracula, he is in my top five iterations, mainly just because of how fun he is, he's not whining about how much immortality sucks, or his stupid dead wife and her stupid reincarnation, but he's also not just evil with no personality, no instead he's having fun. By god more fucking vampires need to be having fun with their unlives, I'm so sick of "tragic" sad bitchy vampires, if they hate eternal life so much, so sun bath! But Dracula here is just having fun, dancing to the panicked heart beat, throwing a ball just to flex his power and reach and being disappointed when he gets staked in the heart like that would work. Hugh Jackman also does bring a fun energy to the role of van helsing even if he's not given a lot to work with, same with kate beckensale's anna. I also really like the idea of the vampire children and the logic of them being born dead so needing to be brought to life is an intriguing one which I wish the movie had explored more, maybe they could have worked in maria zaleska and alucard by doing so. With the sense that it's a giant B-movie this is just an utter blast and I love it to bits. Probably one of my only real complaints is how much time the brides spend in those not that impressive monster forms. The actresses are fun but spend most of their time as cgi so it feels like a waste.
I absolutely agree with you! The movie does have its problems and Dracula's wives could have been in their human forms a bit more often like you said. However, it is also a lot of fun, does have a discernable plot (even if it is a little haphazard at times), and has enough dark elements and brains to keep your attention. It's not the smartest film ever made but the logic with its use of classic monsters is consistent (even if it is kinda dumb on occasion) and works they way are used in the world. The movie is a lot of fun and I love it! It's good to see so many people in this comments section, including yourself, enjoy it, too!
Also love the film. Grew up with the Castlevania games and Van Helsing is one of the only movies, along with the Vampire Hunter D duology, that fit the bill for a Vania movie in my head. The games were action focused and featured Universal monsters, with Dracula as the main villain. Even the Netflix series disrespected the source material and had too much edgy 15yr old writing to be what I hoped it'd be. Didnt even feature any iconic monsters other than Dracula and a few game enemies; no Frank, no Medusa, no Mummies. Van Helsing knows what it is and just does it's thing, bringing all these monsters together in cool settings with action packed moments.
Movie: Named after Van Helsing, main character is Van Helsing, based on the story of Van Helsing. Nostalgia Critic: Why wasn't this all about the monsters?
Intergalactic Human Empire It’d help if they developed Van Helsing and gave him any charm, backstory, personality or anything you need to make a character.
Because he was weakest part of the film. Even that girl (I don't even remember her name) had some ...brother complex? That made me feel anger at her stupidity, but that's emotion at least. Parts with Van Hellsing (whose name I remember NOT because of this film) was uninteresting. I just wanted to see more of Dracula and Frankenstein's monster, or see some more of a cool werewolf design...
@@cartoonnetworkdisneyxdsupe6864 Doesn't seem to care people about that blend like toilet paper main character Frodo! At least in this movie, the main character did, I don't know,...anything!
Isn't that the point? Van Helsing has always been a famous vampire hunter. But he's always been a side character in the classic stories. This movie is named after him, yet he's the least developed character in the movie. The most interesting part of the movie is all the awesome monsters, but no one is given a starring role. Everyone is a side character, which means no one cares about any character in this movie, aside from the monster fights
@@Rogue.Rainbow we did get an Assassin's Creed movie, but judging by the facts that I have a good memory when it comes to movies, and I don't remember it at all, means that it was probably a pile of flaming trash... probably.
@@ndt_dynamite2247 Eh, I liked it. It wasn't anything amazing but it felt like a game. Plus you gotta give them credit for hiring a stuntman to ACTUALLY do the Leap of Faith and not just CGI-ing it.
Certainly by far the best and bad ass looking werewolves in any film, and hopefully there may be more like them in future movies. I especially favor Van Helsing's werewolf form. The vampires looked good too and should be used for future movies.
I still love Van Helsing. I really liked the nonchalant Dracula, every scene he was in was great as Critic himself said, he seemed to be having fun with the character. The soundtrack was banging and the universe created as this half fantasy, dark aged Europe was really good. The idea of all these famous monsters existing in the same world was also great. First medieval mashup "superhero" movie?
Yeah, I'll be honest, I think he was reaching with this review. Van Helsing, like The Mummy, isn't a low-concept movie- it's not supposed to have some super deep layer. The focus is on what's going on; cramming the monsters in there so he can fight them. They're not void of personality at all. Sure there isn't as much weight behind Anna's death as Dumbledore's or whoever but it isn't supposed to be like that. Like The Mummy and plenty of other movies, this is focused on the plot. Will kids grow up saying Van Helsing is their role model? Probably not. But if they watch it they won't be bored because it's like a rollercoaster ride. Pacing? Please. There's a clear objective, they're often going to new locations and encountering new situations which they deal with differently, and there are breather moments like when they're talking in the castle. In short, I don't think most people who like this film will claim it's high art, but like The Mummy and plenty of other plot-focused movies, it's still entertaining the same way 80's action movies are for their genre. And not to get too personal but... the Nostalgia Critic show is similar. We come here for the jokes and possibly the nostalgia. Where's his character development? There's rarely any consistent narrative. And that's okay, because that's not the kind of program it's supposed to be. But don't judge other forms of entertainment for trying to do the same thing and not being Good Will Hunting or whatever. Not raging, just felt this needed to be said. This show's great and I continue to enjoy the episodes including several moments in this one.
I'm not reaching at all. Movies are made to entertain in different ways. Inception isn't Monty Python and the Holy Grail isn't Alien isn't 80's action movies, etc. If you're going to criticize a movie I think it ought to be in the context of the kind of movie it is. Arnold, Sylvester, Jean Claude and other character action movies are mostly vehicles for the blockbuster scenes. Judging them for shallow characters would make about as much sense as judging Driving Miss Daisy for not having enough ass-kicking. If he didn't enjoy Van Helsing that's perfectly fine. I just think what he's criticizing the movie for here is largely misplaced for what the movie was trying to do. For me it succeeded well enough at such things that I enjoy it. If someone else finds it boring because- say -they thought Helsing vs Dracula at the end was too short a fight for a final battle, then I'll just accept that as a difference of opinion.
I got to strongly disagree with this video. This movie paid homage to the classic Universal Monster movies (especially the monster bash ones from the 1940’s) but it was trying to be its own movie at the same time. The Frankenstein monster (although I admit that he was annoying at times) in this one had a personality unlike how he was used in other crossover movies from the 1940’s as just a plot device. Some of the effects might be a little dated, but at least the sets are real and have aged better than the Star Wars Prequels. It has great action scenes, an amazing soundtrack, and a Greek tragedy like ending that was similar to that of The Wolf Man. People’s criticisms of this movie are sort of just a repeat of what critics said about it at that time. Despite its faults, I would rather watch this over any of the Universal Monster movies made in the past decade. Ironically, I made an editorial video on this movie almost a year ago and I recommend anyone to watch it if they are open-minded enough to do so.
agreed this is something that should come back I mean write in a few different things but other wise this movie is good I've watched it and it was like you said it's own thing.
I've only seen this review and not the full movie but from what I've seen I feel like they didn't use Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde enough. Also I feel that they made Frankenstein to much of a brute rather than a misunderstood monster. But that's just me though.
I have to strongly disagree with your comment. This movie tried to cash in on the classic Universal Monster movies, failed to do that, and failed to be its own thing, even failing to be a movie. Van Helsing much like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen were movies I watched a lot as a kid, it took me years to figure out why I watched them a lot. It's because they are empty boring shells, so you have to press the repeat button for the substance build up, not as in it's a layered experience, but as in it's so watered down and empty you watch it again because it was forgettable and left you wanting more, wanting better. I'd respect somebody calling Twilight a good movie more than somebody saying Van Helsing is.
If you like it, fair enough, but I watched this movie in the theaters and the main leads were so dull (and surprisingly wooden in their acting a lot of the time) that I just checked out and started thinking of ways to make fun of them partway through the movie and didn't get interested again until the big action bit at the end, after which I was too busy thinking how stupid the Gabriel revelation was to feel anything about the death of one cardboard cutout. Not that I would have felt much anyway, given her total lack of character. This movie had a few good scenes but it was not good overall. And I'm saying this as someone who likes monster Mash-ups. I like Monster Squad and Abbot and Costello Meet the Wolfman. Hell, I liked Scooby Doo and Reluctant Werewolf better than Van Helsing.
16:27 “That’s not OK…. LAHOMA” Oh I get it now, because the previous clip is from the movie “Oklahoma.” It’s actually pretty funny now that I kinda get it. (I still haven’t watched Oklahoma)
I mean you can say it's cheesy and shallow but it stands up to most Hollywood multibillion dollar movies of the last decade. They are not better, especially what Disney churns out.
Couple things in defense of this movie, 1. Probably the best looking Frankenstein monster since Boris Karloff. 2. Creative way for werewolf transformation in that it tears itself apart is it transformed, and again good design. 3. Compared to like what Universal was churning out in the 1940s with all the monster crossovers that made no sense nor properly used all the monsters, this at least made sense why Dracula, werewolves, and the Frankenstein monster are all in one movie. 4. I like Mr. Hyde. I swear there was an animated direct to dvd prequel about Hyde and Van Helsing. Some day someone will figure out how to bring the Universal Monster movies back and do it right
Back Then - We want our movies to have deep analytical dives into the hearts and minds of the characters that we see! - Last Jedi comes out Now - We want movies to be fun and heart warming!
First: Good video Second: I still unironically love this movie. Is it great? No, no it is not. It’s dumb and has some major failings. If nothing else, this movie gave me one of my favorite depictions of Dracula, Richard Roxburgh may be chewing the scenery like there’s no tomorrow, but it is glorious.
at least they used the different spaces creatively. I haven't seen many movies about Dracula, but I liked that instead of having him turning into all sorts of animals to change a candle or stuff they actually showed that he had some literally gravity-bending powers, which means he's a fucking menace. they could have used the "climbing a wall by walking on it" thing a bit more, I think it was wasted on a single scene. like, when he's transformed it's expected that he can walk on walls, but when he's in his human form? doing it so non-chalantly? that's way cooler imo. and I really liked the overall aesthetic. and the Frankenstein monster, being more human than the rest of the cast. I kinda see where the film fails, but I enjoy it nonetheless.
Yeah Roxburgh chews the scenery but that was kind of the point. He has a lot of fun with the role although he lacks the menace or commanding presence of someone like Christopher Lee. Of course Lee played the role straight but never the less.
Kilikus Nice! Ps: What wouldn't I give to hear a Nicolas Cage's rendition, (in one of his full freakout mode), of that annoyingly funny thing... "Not the bees!"
17:11 Frankensteins monster and Jekyll/Hyde is opposites in this movie. Frankensteins monster where created by evil, but not ruled by it. Hyde might have been created by innocensce, if not goodness, but he is ruled by evil. Nothing to be confused about here.
what are you doing here? go back to making red hot knife cutting through shit and click-bait some more, I unsubbed from you a long time ago because your content is so repetitive now.
I don't really understand Critic's opinion towards Brandon Frasier's Mummies and Val Helsing. They all were great B-movies with few nods to the ol' good adventuring film genre. Atleast Doug makes digging into film's faults entertaining! But that skit at the end seems to convey a message that while he might not enjoy a movie, he does acknowledge the fact that some(even a majority) will
The first Brendan Fraser Mummy was a lot of fun, the second was mediocre and the third doesn't exist. Van Helsing is an enjoyable guilty pleasure. The weird thing is that Tom Cruise is an infinitely better actor than Fraser but Fraser's Mummy was much better than Cruise's.
I know it's a silly movie but that van hellsing meet hyde scene was cool to me back in 2004 and still is today. 14 year old movies from the early 2000s just have alot bad CGI. But still an enjoyable movie for me. Ps: No shame in liking it 😉
Also, he's making fun of CGI in it, but in 2004 this looked legit amazing. I remember being really impressed by some of the visuals as well as overall style of this movie back in the day. It's kinda of a cheap shot to nitpick CGI in older movies because we've become so spoiled by it in the past decades. The last movie I remember where CGI astounded me was probably Avatar.
#1Slayer I actually beat that game 100%. I found it to be pretty good as a child, but I have very few memories of it now, and if I played it today I don't know if I would like it.
Are we really going to focus on it that much? I still don't understand why those films are such a big deal, for crying out loud people, they are just training films for employees at Chuck E. Cheese!
I don't think it's an embarrassing mistake and the example with link and Zelda is too much. Dr Frankenstein made the monster and the monster calls him his dad so it's natural he has the same last name Frankenstein. As long as you not call the monster Dr Frankenstein it's not embarrassing
the reason why van helsing is called a murderer is because he's killing monsters, but when the monster dies, they're already in human form, and people will think that an innocent person was killed. Also, you should watch the animated prequel, Van Helsing- The London Assignment, which shows van helsing's first meeting with hyde.
Believe it or not, there's a Tom and Jerry Tales episode called "Monster Convention" in which Tom chases Jerry throughout a monster convention held at a hotel. You'll never guess who Tom's owner is in this one--yep--it's Van Helsing--and yes, it's THAT Van Helsing.
The funny part is that I'd totally be okay with a Tom and Jerry Van Helsing movie direct to DVD movie. It would probably be better than the original and Tom and Jerry upstaging the main characters would be more than welcome.
Van Helsing was depicted as an old man in Bram Stoker's Dracula novel. The Hugh Jackman's version is more likely to be modeled after Solomon Kane rather than Bram Stoker's vision.
Let me get this straight... It's October, it's a movie that is a big classic horror movie monster mashup, the movie revolves around one who slays such monsters, the second season is about to come out on Netflix, you made TWO Zelda references...…….. And... *NOT ONE CASTLEVANIA REFERENCE????*
This movei should be a castelvania movie it has some references but the script is so lazy that they dont use it correct. If it was only van helsing in the castle of dracula finding this monsters inside and dracula having a plan to copy all them in a army would be a better movie tham this one. Because istead of travelyng they could develop characters and plot
Only 2 more weeks of Nostalgiaween!! What would you like NC to review on a future episode?
Support this week's charity - www.redcross.org/
Nostalgiaween intro animation by Kritken - th-cam.com/users/TheKritken
Nostalgiaween intro music by Jayhan - th-cam.com/users/jayhanthemusician
Review nightmare on elm street remake and the Friday the 13th remake please?
Scarygodmother 2!
*Tremors 1990*
*Is it a bad movie or a fun guilty* *pleasure?*
Alien vs predator requiem
Sleepaway camp and goosebumps.
I actually think Richard Roxburgh did an excellent job as Dracula. He is neither a heartless tyrant nor a mentally deranged clown (most villains these days are one of these two types). Instead, he is a surprisingly effective combination; an ambitious megalomaniac who does want to take over the world, but also wants to have fun and let out his frustrations in the process.
@@rezalustig6773 Interesting, didn't know these details. In all movies I saw him, I think he did a fine job, usually as a villain. But they were mostly flawed movies.
Yeah
He's a bad Dracula but a fun villian
I agree, i think he did amazing as Dracula.
At least he's better than Adam Sandler's Dracula in Hotel Transylvania. What a ripoff!!
Van Helsing said "Requiescat en pace", or "rest in peace" in Italian, when Jekyll hit the ground. I actually don't speak Italian, I've just played lots of ezio's assassin's creed games.
I think it was Latin though.
Ikr, whenever critics push their own standard they just ignore some effort put by the people behind it.
Yes it's latin.
Latin, honey. Latin. That's also what the initials RIP stand for, though it did conveniently transfer over into English well enough.
(Remember in the game it was a traditional prayer that dates back way before Ezio)
And they say games can't teach you anything.. HA! Yes they can.
@@echoskelet I mean, on some level I agree with you, but this isn't the case I would use to prove it seeing as OP is actually wrong. Assassin's Creed clearly did their research on a number of things, but aside from the in-game wall of text when you pass a certain landmark, I REALLY wouldn't get your history lessons from them.
Frankenstein is actually a legit way to refer to refer to “the monster” in the original book the monster names himself Frankenstein because “we are all named after our fathers”
" the monster " commited identity thief
He actually names himself Adam in the novel. But I do see your point.
@@jessicapeters7440 He does. Adam Frankenstein.
Jessica Peters Not exactly. He says to Frankenstein “I am the Adam of your labors”. Whether he meant that as his name or not is ambiguous.
There is some evidence that Mary Shelley never meant the monster to have a name.
Dammmmmn.... No comeback Doug?
Theory; This is one of Wolverines life stories.
Riftsighf
😳
You’ve just blown my whole mind
A FILM THEORY!
That would be super fucking cool
David Cinnella AAANNND CUT
Van Helsing is honestly a guilty pleasure of mine. If I ever see it on the tv I'll stop and watch it in its entirety. I still love the line: "If you're going to kill someone then kill them, don't waste your time just talking about it!".
Same
The Unholy Messiah I enjoy this movie too man. It’s better than the Dark Universe that can’t get off the ground.
It was ok. I didn't like the end though because the girl dies.
It's one of my favorite movies to watch too.
My favorite line: "Some things are better left forgotten."
NGL, the movies got some solid one-liners.
@13:43 "Do you understand forgiveness?" "Yes." "So you can forgive me when I kill him."
Many folks don't realize that forgiveness is a two-way-street.
"Have you no heart?"
"No!"
That was actually pretty funny.
Chad Norris
He cuts out the best part of the scene
@@RickyUzumaki993 He cuts out a lot of scenes that explain some issues he has as well. Critic bashes the movie calling the monster Frankenstein even though it was established that he doesn't like to be called a monster and considers the doctor his father, which technically makes him another Frankenstein in the family line.
its been years since ive seen this movie and i honestly was not expecting that line, so i started cracking up and had to pause there
RevStalker
That’s part of why I don’t like this review as much as some of his others
Cthulu jesus
Can’t say I blame you
I will go to my eternal rest defending Van Helsing [2004] as a genuinely great film.
Me too. This movie is awesome. Yes, it is stupid as fuck but it is also just so damn entertaining.
I saw this movie in theaters when I was 9. This movie will always kick ass in my eyes
Agreed, I don't care if this is basically Hugh Jackman's Wild Wild West 😂
Dude I will always be on your side
Ngl man NC's points were either kinda dishonest or he misunderstood a scene lol.
I never understood the hate for this movie and I never will. Even if the effects weren't that great, the art direction and style was actually amazing and somewhat unique. Dracula is such an interesting character in this too.
Do people not like the Brendan Fraser Mummy anymore? I know the sequels weren't that great but I seem to recall everyone loving the first one.
I love the first one. Glorious fun.
I didn't love the first one
+ValensBellator
I love both the first, and second films.
ValensBellator Nostalgia Critic seemed to like it, as he referenced it 4 times in this video. That or he just thought the two movies were very similar
There could be a couple reasons for this. At least that’s just me thinking out loud.
The Mummy (Brendan Fraser starring) is awesome. It’s not perfect, but it was such a fun movie. When it came out, that’s what most people thought despite some of the negative criticism.
Nowadays, people might not like it because; it’s a remake, CGI doesn’t hold up, character tropes that have been around for a long time, and probably more.
If you want to hear someone talk positive about The Mummy, check out StitchedTogetherPics video on it. He has a series called ‘boots to reboots’ and compared this movie with its original.
I kinda wished Van Hellsing did well. I love the idea of Hellsing being a monster Hunter and taking on All the Classic Universal Monsters.
well, at least we have Castlevania now
I watch this movie every year for Halloween. Call it a guilty pleasure. It's mediocre at best, but a fun little romp IMO.
@@egroegreyes986 don't forget the Hellsing manga/anime
Supernatural season 4 episode 5
Me too
Fun fact: Carl is the best cowardly sidekick in movie history, he literally does almost everything!
*stares in Samwise Gamgee*
An his "comic relief" isn't super campy or over the top
My favorite Carl line:
"You're a monk, you shouldn't curse at all."
"Technically I'm still just a friar, I can curse all I want............ DAMN IT."
@@emmanuelrosas1434 Sam wise is the opposite of a coward
@@emmanuelrosas1434
Samwise is no coward. He’s not named Samwise the Brave for no reason.
There's at least one thing, we can all agree on...this movie has the best looking werewolves ever.
And that's the thing I love about this movie.
Although they miss a tail.
@@Leofwine Yes, give them a long tail and you got 👌a perfect werewolf design.
Dog Soldiers had better werewolves
Yes!! The Werewolves was the best part of Van Helsing. Amongs other thing like.. Kate Beckinsale being hot or Richard hilarious Dracula or... The sidekick. 😂
@@Leofwine calm down fury 😂
She actually says. "Do you like to fly Anna?"
I was about to say this. Lol
Didn’t sound like it, but I hear it now
I remember the running gag of Carl not actually being a monk and being able to do certain things monks weren't supposed to do actually being hilarious. Besides the cursing joke mentioned here, there is a pretty great scene where Carl saves a village woman from Dracula's children after they all die. She wants to know how she can repay him. He whispers something to her. She tells him he can't do that as he's a monk. He admits that he's actually only a friar. Sure enough, in the next scene, they're having sex together.
I liked the scene where he nuked the masquerade ball with a light-bomb gadget he had invented but wasn't quite sure what it would be good for.
And when helsing says something about it, he replies "I just have access to very unstable chemicals" lmao
Hell yea funny stuff
If you think about it, carl is really the hero of this movie. he supplies van helsing with all the cool gadgets that save him time and again (crossbow, silver bullets), saves (and gets) the girl while van helsing kills his love interest, figures out what can kill dracula, kills more vampires in a single scene than van helsing killed in the entire movie (the light bomb), assisted in killing igor and one of the brides, and was totally ready to put werewolf helsing down until he realized he'd been given the cure. carl is the hero here, but van helsing got all the credit.
TO BE HONEST, in the book, Jekyll, as Hyde, was very aware of what he was doing. Hyde wasn't a new personality who rised everytime he drinked his potion, it was a sort of new body form.
And he decided to do whatever he wanted because no one could hold him accountable
Oh honey, you actually think Stephen Sommers has read the book....
Yes! Thank you! Hyde is Jekyll in a different body. He doesn’t have DID or something like that. Jekyll was totally aware of what he was doing as Hyde.
4:30 Actually, there used to be a lot of Germans living all over Eastern Europe, there were 786,000 in Romania until WWII.
Came to post this. However, the point still stands that Frankenstein operated out of Ingolstadt, far away from Romania.
Also, NC should probably check a map from 1887, the borders were... slightly different back then.
It doesn't matter if the borders were different. Victor was not in Romania. I don't think he even went there when he wondered the wilds. I believe he went to Norway.
Really what happened to them!1
Transylvania would have been like 10% Germans at that time.
*@Nabeel Work* After the Soviet Union collapsed and the Romanians put a bullet in their dictator's head they... suggested it might be in the best interest of the Germans to leave.
Many did and are now back in Germany.
EDIT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans_of_Romania
I really unapologetically love this movie!
I always loved this movie too, the review was hysterical tho
Im unapologetically black
Amen bloody loved this movie!
I enjoy watching this movie. Its awesome in my opinion
Same
This movies werewolf design is my favorite in my opinion. It looks threatening and seems like a actual hybrid of wolf and man unlike some films *cough cough* twilights abominations *cough cough*
I mean they call them “werewolves” when a werewolf is a half man half wolf and has no control over the change at all unlike that crappy film series “werewolves
@@nargacugaking9767 to be fair the vampires there could stand in sunlight so accuracy was not the best thing for Twilight lol
Or the weird harry potter design
NargacugaKing technically they are just called werewolves, but it was revealed in the 4th book they are not really werewolves but shapeshifters that turn into wolves and they are called werewolves because it is just easier. It is even revealed that there are actual werewolves that are more like what you described, but that was something that was cut out of the movies.
MonsterJunkie the Harry Potter design was decent not scary due to looking like a starved stray poodle but I prefer large powerful threatening werewolves that look like a half man beast
The fight between Igor and friar Carl was lovely. Two dudes with no skill in a fight to the death, just to show the difference between the super powered and skilled to us normal folk.
Say what you want this movie has the absolutely best werewolf design ever. And at least the Frankenstein creature is at least close to the original story
Also fun fact in the original novel: Hyde WASN’T a spilt personality, I’m not kidding. The potion only changed Jekyll’s appearance and just allowed him to act out his more darker urges
I suppose if you suppress those urges long enough they become something completely different from how you normally present yourself.
kamenriderreaper Heh, that seems to be the most recurring error in each and every Jekyll and Hyde adaptation. ( Well, maybe Pallance's was not that bad actually...)
"Boo hoo, Hyde is the Monster, not me!"
I believe this choice is Made to make Jekyll more Sympathetic,but people seem to forget that he is a Hypocrite, just like anyone during the Late Victorian era! We are not supposed to feel sorry for him!
Except that's wrong, Hyde was indeed another personality - it's what leads to jeckyls attempts to restrain him and keep him in check
Now whether this is an analogy to him losing himself to his darker desires is up for debate ( I think it is) bit it doesn't change what's actually written
Not even close to the original frankeinstein story.
marduk ishenhougher no he wasn’t, Jekyll’s letter at the end of the story makes it clear that HE was In control the whole time. Every time he took the serum it only changed his outer appearance but continual use made it so he had to keep taking it in order to change back, however he was starting to run out, that’s why he locked himself away so that no one would learn the truth. www.tor.com/2012/06/22/what-everybody-gets-wrong-about-jekyll-and-hyde/
It's got problems, and you do make valid points. But, I'm with Roger Ebert on this one. "'Van Helsing' is silly and spectacular, and fun."
Like Venom
Yeah I agree on that one
For once, I'm with the Critic. I like dumb movies (Wild Wild West, I Frankenstien, Venom) but this one doesn't even reach my low standards.
Robert Currie I think with dumb movies it is a bit hit or miss for everybody. I personally like Van Helsing way more than I, Frankenstein (... haven’t seen Venom yet, but based in the trailer not too much into it).
xaayer No.
25:31 "...and what should be really cool is so ridiculously fake, you'd swear its a Michael Bay reboot of Hotel Transylvania!"
Shhh! Don't give him any ideas!
This movie isnt perfect
But it has my favorite interpretations of Dracula and Werewolves
Dracula looks like a giant demonic bat and The black Werewolf is what a Werewolf should look like
Only big budget movie i can think of were the damned werewolves look like goddamned humanoid WOLVES,
Oh yes the black werewolf is by far the best and bad ass design for any werewolf.
@@dinosaurfan2409 WAY better than any other ones I've seen
I loved the grey werewolf the best, he's so underapreciated. No one ever mentions him.
Rade Ilić that one looks good too, certain has a savage and vicious look to it. Some times it makes me think of the coloring and facial look from An American Werewolf in London.
“They called the monster ‘Frankenstein’! That’s like calling Link ‘Zelda’!”
Well, you did call Billy the Puppet “Jigsaw”...
Frankenstein went to a bodybuilding competition he had the wrong impression
You're expecting consistency from a hack?
Many creations end up being synonymous with their creator,like the "hoover" or "Photoshop".
OH SNAP
Ooh! Hypocrite! And unlike the Frankenstein monster, Billy and jigsaw aren't public domain (dozens of movies and shows accidentally refer to the monster as Frankenstein, of course most of them are just merely references).
Egh, not the best film ever but ... I have to admit it's one of my guilty pleasures on Halloween
I was gonna write something very similar but then I saw your comment so... Thumbs up for you it is.
Same
I can't be a guilty pleasure if its good
I bet you says so becouse your mom plays one of the warewolf :P
*werewolf
6:49 Every Assassin’s Creed fan knows exactly what Hugh Jackman said.
Nicholas Eickman well, I’m an Assassins creed fan and didn’t get it am I just dumb
@TheMotherland I don't know? I've never played it
@@itsjustmenova When Ezio kills his targets he says "Requiescat in pace" which is Latin for "Rest in peace"
@@coffeeaddict9605Ah thank you
@@coffeeaddict9605 Why did Doug Walker not get that? Oh, and I used to play that game.
it was an overall okay movie, the best scene, in my opinion, was seeing Hugh Jackman kick Dracula's ass as a awesome werewolf.
Honestly my favorite was when Anna was fighting Dracula's wife and Anna said " if your gonna kill someone, don't spend all your time talking about it." I always thought it was funny.
I think she's actually saying: Do you like to fly _Anna?_
That's exactly what she's saying. Not sure how he could have missed that, but it seems like he misses a lot of the details in movies.
I think Doug needs to start watching movies with subtitles
Maybe douche mcnitpick needs to come back for an episode
I couldn't make that out. Incompetent sound recording.
Daddy would you like some sausage aaaAAAAAh!
Seriously love the opening for this year’s Nostalgiaween. May not have grown up with Beetlejuice but I did know of the opening
I think I am the only one who absolutely hates this year's Nostalgiaween opening.
I remember when he talked about it in his Top 11 Nostalgic Mindfucks
@@Zeithri You're not alone.
@@Karmy. and top 11 theme songs
@@Zeithri why
Fox: Didnt know the NC had enough money to cast Brad Pitt as the Invisible man
Fun fact, Brad said he'd do it for a cup of coffee.
@@crashandersen602 Fox: Lol
10:00
I'm gonna be honest with ya, Dracula's brides are my favorite part of this movie.
From their lines, to their monster form to their human form.
If I ever become a vampire, first order of business is to get myself a set of those...
Something I've always liked about the brides is you can tell the hierarchy between them in their 1st appearance.
@@propheinx2250and that they are all so different from eachother. Like yeah, they are bride's and love Dracula, but they aren't copy paste.
I've actually based the D&D campaign I'm running off this movie. When you take out the underwritten main characters you're left with cool settings, concepts, creature designs, gadgets, and a fairly minimal plot that leaves lots of wiggle room for players to do their own thing. It's perfect!
You genuinely like the creature designs in this film!? There was not one I thought was done well. The only interesting idea was the see-through brain and heart, but the character design negated that coolness.
I would love to play that campaign.
Cyril when you describe them they sound cooler than what they appear as in the movie.
deathlegionair - you make a solid point.
My thoughts exactly
I loved the werewolf design in this film
Same. Still the best I've seen.
The design and the transformation scenes were the best
It's a shame goosebumps blatantly stole it.
Krazy Larry Yeah it was probably one of the only cool things in the movie
Definitely my favorite werewolves
Screw everybody I love this movie
even if people don't like it doesn't mean that you have to, its all opinions. I enjoy watching these for fun
I also love this movie
I really like it too, it is cheesy but it is cool.
doesn't deserve all the hate
Actually, everyone here likes the movie, other than the critic.
Will not apologize for my love for this movie. The whole thing felt like a love letter to the old *Universal Monster* movies. And some of the creature designs are top notch.
Agree
Great movie
Watched it a thousand times
I watched this film as a kid, loved it back then and still love it. It has the best CGI werewolves ever made in Hollywood history, with splendid soundtracks and a decent story. Extremely underrated film.
Agreed
The werewolf in harry potter to me is still the best it looks like great and creepy combination of man and beast instead of just a jacked wolf
I respectfully disagree
I love this movie
@@Blaze-xe8cl The one in Harry Potter looked like he had the mange and lost all his fur. I wish they had shown Hugh Jackman as a werewolf more in this movie. The best looking werewolf on film that I have ever seen! (Well, Michael Jackson in Thriller looked awesome, but also looked more like a cat.)
Not wanting to be a pedant (who am I kidding...), but in the book, Frankenstein refers to the creature as his son. So technically, if the creator thinks of his creation as his own offspring, then the creature can also be called Frankenstein.
There's something deeply amusing to me about the idea of a version of Robocop who's self-aware of, and wholly comfortable in, his own pedantry. I may need to get out more.
Pineappolis Dead or alive you’re coming with me. Although, if you ARE dead, the actuality of the situation is that you’ll be travelling in the back of a coroner’s van or ambulance and not strictly “with” me. But I’m sure you get the metaphor. Thank you for your cooperation.
Birth certificates be damned!
Paul Cowan hmm that’s an interesting way of looking at it
Huh. Never thought of it like that. You mean like some people refer to the plant in Little Shop of Horrors Audrey or Audrey 2?
"The story is an excuse for cartoon action scenes"
And is that a con? I mean, it's dumb and it's not a brilliant movie, but is freaking fun as hell. Any time it's on TV I watch it all the way through, it's never boring and has a really great atmosphere.
Agreed; it's a dumb action movie- and it's good at what it does. Now if it had tried to present itself as more, then I'd have a problem with it.
Well yeah it is a con actually. If you want to be a fun cheesy action horror movie with iconic horror monsters, just go all out! Don’t try to be “Oh so deep and tragic” it’s totally inconsistent with the tone you’re going for.
...Battle of the Mario fans, huh?
Karanthaneos just bcuz it’s fun, doesn’t mean it’s a good movie
GrubbyArmadillo 98 Like The Wicker Man remake.
You all dare insult a movie with Hugh Jackman that wasn't X Men Origins Wolverine? *YOU DARE?!*
Hey, X Men Origins was at least better than The Wolverine (Minus poor Wade. Like seriously, bbu what did they do to you? )
@@dancingcarapace 🧢
Movie 43 says otherwise
@@dancingcarapace Not really, X-men Origins was bottom of the barrel horrible for me, uninteresting plot, poorly shot action scenes, a waste of Gambit, terrible effects etc
I actually enjoyed The Wolverine, i liked its gritty realism, how they weakened Logan to increase the tension, the action scenes (except for the silver samurai one) were pretty damn good and had this realism to it. But yeah, the Japanese characters are pretty bland
Have you seen Pan or Chappie?
This movie was fantastically entertaining and is criminally underrated. I could not disagree more with this review.
I was neutral on it. It was entertaining on the first viewing, but it fails to hold up under inspection and it didn't age well.
@@razzyrazberries it aged awesomely,
It's NOT a horror or scary or whastever movie. It's STRICTLY entertainment for people who say, "i can deal with a detective movie that has supernatural elements. Like an over the top SUPERNATURAL in movie form"
Shit was awesome.
The shit IS awesome
Nice movie to lay back and chill with every so often and always around Hallows eve
I really like the movie but its pretty bad
I genuinely enjoyed how the actor played Dracula as well.
@@agonleed3841 shit is dumb, meaningless fanfiction.
4:27 Just for the record, a significant German population actually did live in Transylvania in the 19th century.
I love that you just know this from the top of your head.
Okay, history man
They still have a sizeable minority living there, but they never recovered from the purges romanian communists did after WW2.
Adding onto that, Victor Frankenstein was Swedish, not German.
The movie is called Van Hellsing. Not Dracula vs Wolfman. This movie isn't great but it gives you what it sells.
They could have made him more interesting.
6:40
But they did make a cheesy hunchback joke. Mr. Hyde hit his head on a Bell and bellowed out "The bells! The bells!" as it began to toll.
I don't care what Nostalgia Critic says, Van Helsing was awesome.
I like it and I don't give a shit what anyone thinks about it
@Alex Apparently you do eh?
This is my favorite monster movie of all time and unlike most monster movies these days it actually has plot instead of not scary jump scares and senseless gore. Yes Underworld has gore but it has plot
Critic is talking about it like it's a failed horror monster film when it's really not.
LOL. This movie lacks everything any decent movie has. Saying this is awesome is silly.
Can we all stop to acknowledge that Doug was rocking the pumpkin jacket before SNL made it a popular item with David S. Pumpkins?
Yeah, that is true.
David S Pumpkins, lol. yes I love when something is so obvious that all I can do is like comments.
You obviously never seen don cherry suits or jacks , Doug needs to get on his suit lvl.
HAHAHA! 😂 "Any questions???"
SNL bought it at a random party store.
Thanks for pointing out the "I'm a strong independant woman and don't need to be saved by no man!" speech that is always quickly followed by said woman playing stereotypical damsel/love interest the rest of the film. It happens so often and drives me nuts. Perfect example of studios trying to pander to new mentalities WITHOUT actually changing any of their characters or plot points. XD
EDIT: And I should add that I actually say this as a fan of the damsel trope. I LOVE a good damsel (male or female) but I don't love said damsel confidently demanding that they're strong, INSISTING on it and then being immediately proven a hypocritical liar. See, not everyone needs to be an action hero capable of taking out hordes of enemies--that's the protagonist's job--so damsels don't need to act like they can do that as well. They should just be weak in action scenarios but cool in others be it strategy, personality, connection to main character, etc. A good example of this would be Princess Leia from Star Wars. She's a damsel, but I rarely see anyone complain about it since she's also an interesting character with other "non-actiony" strengths. I mean, the freaking woman gets tortured by her captors and then STILL lies to them in order to protect her people. What a badass!
I.e: The damsel trope doesn't HAVE to be annoying or used badly like it was in this film. Just don't try to have your characters pretend to be something they're not.
Exactly! I hate this tropes that show up whenever some out of touch hack writer tries to write a "Strong Female Character" that's neither strong, nor have any character. Bonus points if she also has to spout the old "I'm not like other girls" line, because the writers are dumb enough to think bashing all the women who isn't the female lead is empowering somehow.
They're there to be eye candy to the men in the audience in addition to make the male hero look good in comparison, because if she's introduced as this cool sexy ninja fighter whatever, the male hero will look even cooler when he surpasses her fighting prowess and has to rescue her in the third act, and no matter how aloof or independent she is at the start of the movie she always turn around by the third act and falls for the hero.
The most unfortunate truth is female characters are just like the ones in Patch Adams.... Fuck you Hollywood. No thanks to you we still have dumbasses in distress!
Really yuor one of those people
@@sonofaries2162 no and thank you for your question.
And this movie still reigns supreme as far as having the best looking Werewolf ever. Period. Nothing was better, even the fight between Him & Dracula. Absolutely incredible.
An American werewolf in London would like a word
The fight at the end could have been better if Dracula wasnt trying to fly away like a pu**y
Kate Beckinsale is just damn hot.
go sit down
*is
Thiiiiiiiisssss
I'd still bang her no problem
They should have cast her to play Yennefer in the Witcher series
I was in the 4th grade, and after school my father surprised me by picking me up from school and taking me, by bus, to the Huntington Park area in Los Angeles, way back when it still had great movie theaters. This movie came out on my birthday, it was one of the greatest, most perfect days I ever spent with my Pops. I love this movie, it has a soft spot in my mind.
I grew up in Huntington Park and never never once saw a movie there. I still go there often to see my parents.
Van Helsing is a good and entertaining film, as most of the people here seem to agree with.
Entertaining, sure. At least as the "once every 3 years" kind of entertaining. A good movie though? Not really. (TL:DR at the bottom)
There are some cool ideas here and there, and the monsters are actually pretty good(they have a fair bit of personality and "design" and motivation, compared to the humans of the movie). The only human character with a decent amount of personality is actually Carl. He is the fish out of water and tells us so. He is the one struggling with his beliefs and have to change his view on the world(monsters are bad -> some monsters are good). Van Helsing only changes to advance the plot.
It is basically a "chase the McGuffin" movie throughout, with the McGuffin changing every few scenes.
Remember Temple of Doom? The McGuffin was the holy stones, yet you didnt feel that was the center of the movie or the only drive force for the characters. There was a lot of other things going on. The stones were simply the initial catalyst.
In Van Helsing the main motivator changes all the time. It is "catch the werewolf", to "kill vampires", to "find the secret layer" to "save Frankenstein's monster" to "get the antidote". It is like a game, but your main objective for your character changes every 15 minutes, so there is no time for character developement. Sorry, but your princess is in another castle.
If Van Helsing(the character) had more of a Solomon Kane feel to(a man tormented by his past, reluctantly seeking redemption), the character would have much more weight and depth. His actions, when he choose to kill, when he choose to help, would be much more meaningful.
The only real piece of character developement for Van Helsing is very early in the movie(he kills monsters and isnt popular, but doesnt really care much about that) and in the very end(he is cursed and has been for a long time). Nothing about fears or hopes. We know very little of him as a character. It might as well have been Abraham Lincoln running around there.
So yeah, the movie has some fun action scenes, a few funny lines, and some of the monster scenes are pretty great. This makes it a fun watch every now and then. But it is not a movie you would watch several times over a few months, or remember for the characters. One of the few lines I remember from the movie is: "But you are supposed to die! - "I want to live", between Carl and Frankenstein's Monster, as that scene actually told us quite a bit about those 2.
From the main character himself, I cant quote a single line of dialogue, and I have watched this movie 5 times.
TL:DR
Superficial movie with superficial characters. Some fun ideas and decent monster design/acting, but the main character is a piece of cardboard. It could easily have been any other monster hunter, or even someone not supposed to hunt monsters(Abraham Lincoln). There never was an instant where I thought, "wow, I wish they would make a sequel, because I want to see more of this".
@@fendelphi Carl is my favorite character.
I remember I saw it for the first time in awhile and as soon as it ended I went.
Me: .....Damn!
“Isn’t that like having a Saint Bob?”
Doctor Who fans: Uhhh....
Less a saint, more an Angel
@@spookyscarysteve Who says you can't be both? Saint Michael, for example.
With comfy chairs
*Makes fun of the movie for calling the monster Frankenstein*
*Calls the puppet Jigsaw instead of Billy*
Jesus, come on Doug.
To be fair Billy Is a medium that jigsaw use to hide His identidy (like the cassette recordings or the pig face) so its still jigsaw with or without the puppet (hell the puppet names was never mentioned in the movies). Here the monster Is not dr Frankenstein identidy its His own creation, thats why he needs to be called the Frankensteins monster
If we're going to use technicalities, then calling the monster Frankenstein is not necessarily incorrect. As he is a being brought to life by Dr Frankenstein, he could very much be considered Frankenstein's son. And most children take on their father's name after being born. So calling him Frankenstein should be fine.
It's called a parody. he knows the dolls name is Billy but it was for the reason that the movie calls the monster Frankenstein. to call it out.
@@trekend3161 but even if we are going to the original story he Was never a "him" and More like an "it". So call him by what IT isn't in a "serious" story don't fit that well.
@@trekend3161 i mean when does in the movie IT they call the clown pennywise outside from him when he was chatting with georgie. Nobody he Is a monster with no real form (okey he Is a spider but let downs outside) that can't have a Propper name outside from IT.
If they want to reboot the franchise and make it a Cinematic Universe, just Update the classics with Modern technology and connect the movies loosely with the Doctors in each movie being related to Van Hellsing.
The young doctor that helps kill the Wolf man, Young Van Hellsing. Van Hellsing is already in Dracula. Etc.
Doesn't SyFy already have a show about a modern day van Helsing? Really, I don't know. I lost track of how many SyFy Original Series they have.
@@louisduarte8763 not Modern. In the 1800s or 1900s. Just with updated effects and less plot holes.
What about a Young Franknst*ei*n?
Makes fun of calling the monster Frankenstein but calls Billy the Doll Jigsaw
Didn't know the doll was called billy😂after all,jigsaw is the one puppeteering it.
He also calls Samara "Ring girl".
I usually don't do that, but that obviously was meant to be a joke..
And calling Billy a monster
GALACTICUS
Fun fact: I know, putting Castle Frankenstein in Transsylvania is incorrect, BUT there IS a large part of the Romanian population that actually does consist of the descendants of Germans that hop-skipped over there. Or rather were actively transferred there as settles in the middle ages. Which is also why the famous Transsylvania region is sometimes called by its German name Siebenbürgen. So historically, Frankenstein COULD have been Transsylvanian.
I'm going to toss my hat into the ring of people that absolutely LOVED this movie. The absolute BEST werewolves in movies since American Werewolf, the foley design was amazing, the musical score, cinematography, and OMG the theater roared when lightning brought Drac's spawn to life, that lightning strike and electrical wave effect in Surround was heartstopping.
Certainly it's not perfect, but this is a Halloween staple for me. This movie was exactly what it wanted to be: a summer popcorn blockbuster. I didn't expect Bridges Of Madison County in my Stephen Sommers movie.,
THANK YOU! It's no where near perfect but it's the best modern monster crossover movie we'll get for a long time. I love every inch of cheese and action in this haha.
Agreed. The people who made this movie wanted to have fun. You can tell in all of their performances. They wanted fun, and I think that they succeeded.
The werewolves have done it for me.
@@HunterSlayer2727 Invisible Man exists, so I don't agree, but that's just me.
@@cleverpsyche115 Dont have to agree just like what you like and I'll like the films I do. 👍
Some people like original Dracula, some like Invisible man and god dare I say it some people liked the 2017 mummy and I like the crossover story that is Van Helsing because its fun cheese. If we all liked same movies we'd all be sheep lol.
I unironically love Van Helsing. It's the greatest live action Castlevania we'll ever get.
What about the Netflix adaptation?
I loved the Mummy and the Mummy Returns as well(shame they never made a sequel after that)
THERE WAS NO 3RD MUMMY MOVIE OR NO REBOOT WITH A MIDGET SCIENTOLOGIST.
segundo vargas that’s animated
Michael Ford, Agreed on all counts.
Until Simon and Richter gotinto smash
Speaking of Hugh, about time you give us that X-Men Origins review, huh, Critic??
There was nothing nostalgic about that x-turd.
That’s one of those movies that I really don’t see the hatred for. At worst it’s just okay, I even liked that other one, The Wolverine so maybe I have a blind spot for X-men.
@@IAmChadBroseph that one and last stand are still in a fight for my least favorite of the franchise.
MrMacGee, there's nothing nostalgic about half the movies he reviews nowadays, but it's still entertaining.
@@IAmChadBroseph I agree. And if anyone uses the argument of what they did to Deadpool, my counter argument is that the Deadpool Wolverine fights is not actually the 1 from the beginning of the movie, but a clone of the original after he went rogue in those sexy red spandex.
What I mostly enjoyed from this movie is how alluring Hugh Jackman and Kate looked. Gorgeous people.
I know the movie was not the best, but I like Van Helsing. I like the werewolf vs Dracula fight, it was cool.
It also has the best Werewolves on screen.
The transformation animation wasn't bad for it's time. I remember there is some interesting bonus footage of the step by step animation, when it stops being the actor and cgi
I think the line was "Do you like to fly, Anna?", but yeah she says it very oddly.
MrMacGee i was going to say the same thing.
noooo.... NC making overly long jokes about "misheard" word... never!!!
She does not speak English... it’s dubbed
You mongaloid.
@@robinhyperlord9053 das racist!
Honestly, I was almost 100% okay with this film in it's entirety. The characters all do a good job, story is halfway decent, the tools and weapons Van Helsing use are extremely cool, and the CGI is passable, at least. Fun popcorn flick, if anything.
But... those last 5 minutes. The 'looking up in the skies and seeing dead people' was so goddamn cringe-worthy, it ruined the whole movie for me. Like, someone read that in the script draft and was like "Yeah, that sounds great! Put it in the movie!"
half the criticism here just feels tacked in and picky to be honest
If you enjoyed any of the Sean Connery - Bond films, you’ll enjoy this movie. That’s how I described it to people, Because that’s all it is,
It it modernized, with supernatural creatures, and a story that relies on you knowing the backstory.
4:30 There use to be a lot of Germans who lived in Transylvania. They were called the Transylvanian Saxons. During the reign of Vlad "The Impaler" Dracula (The inspiration for Count Dracula) many of the Transylvanian Saxons where persecuted.
She said “do you like to fly, anna”?
No shit, sherlock.
Than why did she say it like a dieing rubber duck
Daddy would you like some sausage?
Ikr!?!
Alex Jewett *then
But let's be real folks, we all remember a singular thing about this movie. That sweet ass automatic crossbow.
That and a werewolf vs vampire scene done well!
All I see is Kate Beckinsale's chest
I think we can all admit... we want that fucking crossbow lols
I'd fuck that crossbow over Kate Beckinsale
Kate Beckinsale in a Corset. That was my takeaway.
I watched this movie for one reason: Kate Beckinsale in a corset.
And those boots.
reasons I watched underworld is Kate Beckinsale in PVC catsuit
Same LOL!
#KateBeckinsaleInfiniteBeauty
IBadGrammar Underworld is good enough on its own too tho
23:15 It's not a mistake, though. The Monster refers to Victor Frankenstein as Father, so would naturally take his name.
BTW, they establish that unlike most vampires Dracula is impervious to weapons such as stakes and crosses but only a werewolf can kill him. That's why he has the cure. Also, the monster was created by Dr Frankenstein which pretty much makes him his son. He even refers to the Doctor as "father" so why wouldn't he also be called Frankenstein? Make more sense then just calling him "monster" all the damn time. And the reason Van Helsing doesn't want Anna to go with him or put herself in danger is because if she, the last of her family, dies before Dracula is killed none of her families souls will enter heaven. They establish that in the scene where Val Helsing is receiving his mission. Another thing, why wouldn't God have the ability to erase someone's memories? He's God. He's omnipotent. I know Steven Summers is hard to follow, but one still needs to pay attention. Personally, this movie is a guilty pleasure for me.
GeneralKenobi75 I thought you were gonna say that Dracula lost because he didn’t secure the high ground.
Well, he didn't
I see nothing wrong with liking this movie. You're points are 100% percent correct and I think doug is too busy talking with his brother when they watch the film to listen when crucial info is given.
You might have a point there.
@@mmeers89 I can actually see that being the case at times LOL
I like how the Invisible Man styled his hair.
Cheap joke, but a good one, +1 like!
Such a low hanging fruit... But still so funny
Is it red? (Hotel Transylvania reference)
Actually Doug, about the monster's name... there's a little known line from the original novel where the monster says that he thinks of Dr. Frankenstein as his "father," which makes sense that he'd take his name himself. Also, the Doctor referred to him as Adam as he was supposed to be the first of a new perfect type of human (IT WASN'T CLICHE BACK WHEN MARY SHELLY DID IT!) so if you wanna get technical the Monster's name is Adam Frankenstein.
Stephen Nagy he doesn’t look like an Adam
Adam? That's almost as bad as "Friar Carl"
Stephen Nagy he thinks of him as a father... that doesn’t make his name Frankenstein his name is Adam... just Adam not Adam Frankenstein
i mean he was made by Victor Frankenstein so i would say giving him the last name frankenstien is correct regardless of whether or not the monster even considers Victor his father.
@@codyburgett7962 Well usually when you have a child they take their fathers last name. Adam Frankenstein would be his name
four years late to this, but I adore this movie. One of my favorites for a multitude of reasons. One is the collection of monsters which all feel like they get their time in lime light unlike the actual classics that just brought Dracula in than tossed him under the bus after like twenty minutes for larry talbet, twice! The Frankenstein monster actually talks and is intelligent like he is in the book but works more as a tragic figure who wants to experience the world but hasn't seen much of the darker side, a nice mix of on book and off book. The werewolf is a nice plot element and chasing menace. And then we have Dracula, I freaking love this dracula, he is in my top five iterations, mainly just because of how fun he is, he's not whining about how much immortality sucks, or his stupid dead wife and her stupid reincarnation, but he's also not just evil with no personality, no instead he's having fun. By god more fucking vampires need to be having fun with their unlives, I'm so sick of "tragic" sad bitchy vampires, if they hate eternal life so much, so sun bath! But Dracula here is just having fun, dancing to the panicked heart beat, throwing a ball just to flex his power and reach and being disappointed when he gets staked in the heart like that would work. Hugh Jackman also does bring a fun energy to the role of van helsing even if he's not given a lot to work with, same with kate beckensale's anna. I also really like the idea of the vampire children and the logic of them being born dead so needing to be brought to life is an intriguing one which I wish the movie had explored more, maybe they could have worked in maria zaleska and alucard by doing so.
With the sense that it's a giant B-movie this is just an utter blast and I love it to bits. Probably one of my only real complaints is how much time the brides spend in those not that impressive monster forms. The actresses are fun but spend most of their time as cgi so it feels like a waste.
I absolutely agree with you! The movie does have its problems and Dracula's wives could have been in their human forms a bit more often like you said. However, it is also a lot of fun, does have a discernable plot (even if it is a little haphazard at times), and has enough dark elements and brains to keep your attention. It's not the smartest film ever made but the logic with its use of classic monsters is consistent (even if it is kinda dumb on occasion) and works they way are used in the world. The movie is a lot of fun and I love it! It's good to see so many people in this comments section, including yourself, enjoy it, too!
Also love the film. Grew up with the Castlevania games and Van Helsing is one of the only movies, along with the Vampire Hunter D duology, that fit the bill for a Vania movie in my head. The games were action focused and featured Universal monsters, with Dracula as the main villain. Even the Netflix series disrespected the source material and had too much edgy 15yr old writing to be what I hoped it'd be. Didnt even feature any iconic monsters other than Dracula and a few game enemies; no Frank, no Medusa, no Mummies. Van Helsing knows what it is and just does it's thing, bringing all these monsters together in cool settings with action packed moments.
Movie: Named after Van Helsing, main character is Van Helsing, based on the story of Van Helsing.
Nostalgia Critic: Why wasn't this all about the monsters?
Intergalactic Human Empire It’d help if they developed Van Helsing and gave him any charm, backstory, personality or anything you need to make a character.
Because he was weakest part of the film. Even that girl (I don't even remember her name) had some ...brother complex? That made me feel anger at her stupidity, but that's emotion at least. Parts with Van Hellsing (whose name I remember NOT because of this film) was uninteresting. I just wanted to see more of Dracula and Frankenstein's monster, or see some more of a cool werewolf design...
@@cartoonnetworkdisneyxdsupe6864 Doesn't seem to care people about that blend like toilet paper main character Frodo! At least in this movie, the main character did, I don't know,...anything!
I guess he just didn't know. Besides, it's not his fault if he thinks Van Hellsing isn't an interesting lead.
Isn't that the point? Van Helsing has always been a famous vampire hunter. But he's always been a side character in the classic stories. This movie is named after him, yet he's the least developed character in the movie. The most interesting part of the movie is all the awesome monsters, but no one is given a starring role. Everyone is a side character, which means no one cares about any character in this movie, aside from the monster fights
6:52 I didn’t know Van Helsing was Ezio.
Requiescat en pace, indeed.
So is Van Helsing a prequel to an Assassin’s Creed movie we will never get?
Rest in piece. He is from Italy. Working for the Catholic Church.
@@Rogue.Rainbow we did get an Assassin's Creed movie, but judging by the facts that I have a good memory when it comes to movies, and I don't remember it at all, means that it was probably a pile of flaming trash... probably.
@@ndt_dynamite2247 Eh, I liked it. It wasn't anything amazing but it felt like a game. Plus you gotta give them credit for hiring a stuntman to ACTUALLY do the Leap of Faith and not just CGI-ing it.
This was the most close thing to Castlevania we had for years so.......it's a guilty pleasure
But is there anything else like Castlevania that's been made since? (besides the Netflix series Castlevania lol)
Yeah it's an unofficial Castlevania in my eyes. Even Dracula's monster form looks like it does in the games.
Certainly by far the best and bad ass looking werewolves in any film, and hopefully there may be more like them in future movies. I especially favor Van Helsing's werewolf form. The vampires looked good too and should be used for future movies.
I still love Van Helsing.
I really liked the nonchalant Dracula, every scene he was in was great as Critic himself said, he seemed to be having fun with the character. The soundtrack was banging and the universe created as this half fantasy, dark aged Europe was really good.
The idea of all these famous monsters existing in the same world was also great. First medieval mashup "superhero" movie?
Dracula is awesome in this one, especially when he melts the cross Helsing waves in his face.
Yeah, I'll be honest, I think he was reaching with this review. Van Helsing, like The Mummy, isn't a low-concept movie- it's not supposed to have some super deep layer. The focus is on what's going on; cramming the monsters in there so he can fight them. They're not void of personality at all. Sure there isn't as much weight behind Anna's death as Dumbledore's or whoever but it isn't supposed to be like that. Like The Mummy and plenty of other movies, this is focused on the plot. Will kids grow up saying Van Helsing is their role model? Probably not. But if they watch it they won't be bored because it's like a rollercoaster ride. Pacing? Please. There's a clear objective, they're often going to new locations and encountering new situations which they deal with differently, and there are breather moments like when they're talking in the castle.
In short, I don't think most people who like this film will claim it's high art, but like The Mummy and plenty of other plot-focused movies, it's still entertaining the same way 80's action movies are for their genre. And not to get too personal but... the Nostalgia Critic show is similar. We come here for the jokes and possibly the nostalgia. Where's his character development? There's rarely any consistent narrative. And that's okay, because that's not the kind of program it's supposed to be. But don't judge other forms of entertainment for trying to do the same thing and not being Good Will Hunting or whatever.
Not raging, just felt this needed to be said. This show's great and I continue to enjoy the episodes including several moments in this one.
I'm not reaching at all. Movies are made to entertain in different ways. Inception isn't Monty Python and the Holy Grail isn't Alien isn't 80's action movies, etc.
If you're going to criticize a movie I think it ought to be in the context of the kind of movie it is. Arnold, Sylvester, Jean Claude and other character action movies are mostly vehicles for the blockbuster scenes. Judging them for shallow characters would make about as much sense as judging Driving Miss Daisy for not having enough ass-kicking.
If he didn't enjoy Van Helsing that's perfectly fine. I just think what he's criticizing the movie for here is largely misplaced for what the movie was trying to do. For me it succeeded well enough at such things that I enjoy it. If someone else finds it boring because- say -they thought Helsing vs Dracula at the end was too short a fight for a final battle, then I'll just accept that as a difference of opinion.
I got to strongly disagree with this video. This movie paid homage to the classic Universal Monster movies (especially the monster bash ones from the 1940’s) but it was trying to be its own movie at the same time. The Frankenstein monster (although I admit that he was annoying at times) in this one had a personality unlike how he was used in other crossover movies from the 1940’s as just a plot device. Some of the effects might be a little dated, but at least the sets are real and have aged better than the Star Wars Prequels. It has great action scenes, an amazing soundtrack, and a Greek tragedy like ending that was similar to that of The Wolf Man. People’s criticisms of this movie are sort of just a repeat of what critics said about it at that time. Despite its faults, I would rather watch this over any of the Universal Monster movies made in the past decade. Ironically, I made an editorial video on this movie almost a year ago and I recommend anyone to watch it if they are open-minded enough to do so.
agreed this is something that should come back I mean write in a few different things but other wise this movie is good I've watched it and it was like you said it's own thing.
I've only seen this review and not the full movie but from what I've seen I feel like they didn't use Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde enough. Also I feel that they made Frankenstein to much of a brute rather than a misunderstood monster. But that's just me though.
I have to strongly disagree with your comment. This movie tried to cash in on the classic Universal Monster movies, failed to do that, and failed to be its own thing, even failing to be a movie.
Van Helsing much like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen were movies I watched a lot as a kid, it took me years to figure out why I watched them a lot.
It's because they are empty boring shells, so you have to press the repeat button for the substance build up, not as in it's a layered experience, but as in it's so watered down and empty you watch it again because it was forgettable and left you wanting more, wanting better.
I'd respect somebody calling Twilight a good movie more than somebody saying Van Helsing is.
I grew up loving the Monster Squad. This movie was fun and entertaining as hell for me.
If you like it, fair enough, but I watched this movie in the theaters and the main leads were so dull (and surprisingly wooden in their acting a lot of the time) that I just checked out and started thinking of ways to make fun of them partway through the movie and didn't get interested again until the big action bit at the end, after which I was too busy thinking how stupid the Gabriel revelation was to feel anything about the death of one cardboard cutout. Not that I would have felt much anyway, given her total lack of character. This movie had a few good scenes but it was not good overall.
And I'm saying this as someone who likes monster Mash-ups. I like Monster Squad and Abbot and Costello Meet the Wolfman. Hell, I liked Scooby Doo and Reluctant Werewolf better than Van Helsing.
16:27 “That’s not OK…. LAHOMA”
Oh I get it now, because the previous clip is from the movie “Oklahoma.” It’s actually pretty funny now that I kinda get it.
(I still haven’t watched Oklahoma)
I unironically liked this movie.
You're not the only one 😁
Same...also the game is awesome.
I mean you can say it's cheesy and shallow but it stands up to most Hollywood multibillion dollar movies of the last decade.
They are not better, especially what Disney churns out.
Same.
Couple things in defense of this movie, 1. Probably the best looking Frankenstein monster since Boris Karloff. 2. Creative way for werewolf transformation in that it tears itself apart is it transformed, and again good design. 3. Compared to like what Universal was churning out in the 1940s with all the monster crossovers that made no sense nor properly used all the monsters, this at least made sense why Dracula, werewolves, and the Frankenstein monster are all in one movie. 4. I like Mr. Hyde. I swear there was an animated direct to dvd prequel about Hyde and Van Helsing.
Some day someone will figure out how to bring the Universal Monster movies back and do it right
5. DAT CROSSBOW!!!
jbiehlable THAT’S IT thank you
6. I remember the game being fun
Tadicuslegion78
Yes, there was that animated 29 minute prequel and Hyde was a dick through and through.
i love this movie. still the best werewolf transformation ever. finally one that looks like a wolf and has fur
This movie was good for what it was. It was meant to be a crazy, goofy action movie with cool creature design. Its a shame people didn't get it.
Back Then - We want our movies to have deep analytical dives into the hearts and minds of the characters that we see!
- Last Jedi comes out
Now - We want movies to be fun and heart warming!
Actually
“Nostalgia Critic” is the first person I’ve seen hating on the movie
People DID get it. Critic is one of the only ones who didn't.
@@glengaines4286 that's the joke of the character he's a CRITIC that's part of the job
@@glengaines4286 seriously ? This ... Looks pretty bad .
2:53 hearing Billy/Jigsaw say "This is BS!" cracks me up
I liked this movie. While cheesy, it was the the enjoyable kind of cheesy.
First: Good video
Second: I still unironically love this movie. Is it great? No, no it is not. It’s dumb and has some major failings. If nothing else, this movie gave me one of my favorite depictions of Dracula, Richard Roxburgh may be chewing the scenery like there’s no tomorrow, but it is glorious.
The video was fucking retarded.
at least they used the different spaces creatively. I haven't seen many movies about Dracula, but I liked that instead of having him turning into all sorts of animals to change a candle or stuff they actually showed that he had some literally gravity-bending powers, which means he's a fucking menace. they could have used the "climbing a wall by walking on it" thing a bit more, I think it was wasted on a single scene. like, when he's transformed it's expected that he can walk on walls, but when he's in his human form? doing it so non-chalantly? that's way cooler imo. and I really liked the overall aesthetic. and the Frankenstein monster, being more human than the rest of the cast. I kinda see where the film fails, but I enjoy it nonetheless.
Yeah Roxburgh chews the scenery but that was kind of the point. He has a lot of fun with the role although he lacks the menace or commanding presence of someone like Christopher Lee. Of course Lee played the role straight but never the less.
Agreed. I love all the scenery chewing all the vampires do. Not just Dracula, but all of them.
it is so much fun as a 'in the background movie'
At 11:08 you can almost hear the defeated cry, "MY CABBAGESSSSS!!!"
Kilikus Nice!
Ps: What wouldn't I give to hear a Nicolas Cage's rendition, (in one of his full freakout mode), of that annoyingly funny thing...
"Not the bees!"
17:11
Frankensteins monster and Jekyll/Hyde is opposites in this movie.
Frankensteins monster where created by evil, but not ruled by it.
Hyde might have been created by innocensce, if not goodness, but he is ruled by evil.
Nothing to be confused about here.
Exactly
That and Jekyll actively chose to be Mr.Hyde.
I remember liking it as a kid.
Guess it is Frozen draft xD
All you need is a thousand degree knife.
Make quality content
Me too.
But then again I liked a lot of stupid shit when i was young.
You would
what are you doing here? go back to making red hot knife cutting through shit and click-bait some more, I unsubbed from you a long time ago because your content is so repetitive now.
I don't really understand Critic's opinion towards Brandon Frasier's Mummies and Val Helsing. They all were great B-movies with few nods to the ol' good adventuring film genre. Atleast Doug makes digging into film's faults entertaining!
But that skit at the end seems to convey a message that while he might not enjoy a movie, he does acknowledge the fact that some(even a majority) will
It is only because they were related to Universal Monsters. But yeh, as unrelated they are totally fine popcorn experience.
The first Brendan Fraser Mummy was a lot of fun, the second was mediocre and the third doesn't exist. Van Helsing is an enjoyable guilty pleasure. The weird thing is that Tom Cruise is an infinitely better actor than Fraser but Fraser's Mummy was much better than Cruise's.
Witness Me You can have the best actor in the world, and it wouldn't help you if you have a shitty script.
I know it's a silly movie but that van hellsing meet hyde scene was cool to me back in 2004 and still is today.
14 year old movies from the early 2000s just have alot bad CGI.
But still an enjoyable movie for me.
Ps: No shame in liking it 😉
Same here dude
I actually enjoy the hammy acting and cheesy cgi. It's a fun watch
gyunexx
You ever play the game?
I did when I was 7, but was too uncoordinated to beat the tutorial...
I found and beat it this year...
Not good... lol
Also, he's making fun of CGI in it, but in 2004 this looked legit amazing. I remember being really impressed by some of the visuals as well as overall style of this movie back in the day. It's kinda of a cheap shot to nitpick CGI in older movies because we've become so spoiled by it in the past decades. The last movie I remember where CGI astounded me was probably Avatar.
#1Slayer I actually beat that game 100%. I found it to be pretty good as a child, but I have very few memories of it now, and if I played it today I don't know if I would like it.
When I first saw Van Helsing when I was a kid, I seriously thought that Dracula was played by Ozzy Osbourne.
Calls out the movie for making the Frankenstein name error but does exactly the same by calling the billy puppet Jigsaw, embarrassing much?.
and has issues with god erasing someones memories
I think that was to emphasize the point.
To be fair most people think of the puppet first no?
I didn't know the puppet was called Billy. I've only seen the first Saw movie.
Are we really going to focus on it that much? I still don't understand why those films are such a big deal, for crying out loud people, they are just training films for employees at Chuck E. Cheese!
I don't think it's an embarrassing mistake and the example with link and Zelda is too much. Dr Frankenstein made the monster and the monster calls him his dad so it's natural he has the same last name Frankenstein. As long as you not call the monster Dr Frankenstein it's not embarrassing
Plus the name Frankenstein is a little more intimidating than calling him Adam.
the reason why van helsing is called a murderer is because he's killing monsters, but when the monster dies, they're already in human form, and people will think that an innocent person was killed. Also, you should watch the animated prequel, Van Helsing- The London Assignment, which shows van helsing's first meeting with hyde.
Believe it or not, there's a Tom and Jerry Tales episode called "Monster Convention" in which Tom chases Jerry throughout a monster convention held at a hotel. You'll never guess who Tom's owner is in this one--yep--it's Van Helsing--and yes, it's THAT Van Helsing.
I saw that episode...
The funny part is that I'd totally be okay with a Tom and Jerry Van Helsing movie direct to DVD movie. It would probably be better than the original and Tom and Jerry upstaging the main characters would be more than welcome.
Van Helsing is really one of those films where the term "Style over Substance" fits.
the style of vampire hunter D.
Or Solomon Kane. Whichever you like more.
@@DSan-kl2yc well Solomon Kane came after
The books (and comic book adaption) featuring Solomon Kane came waaaay before.
@@vnfangy yeah but if you check when that was out but Ven helsing was mentioned in Bram Stokers Dracula book
Van Helsing was depicted as an old man in Bram Stoker's Dracula novel. The Hugh Jackman's version is more likely to be modeled after Solomon Kane rather than Bram Stoker's vision.
Let me get this straight... It's October, it's a movie that is a big classic horror movie monster mashup, the movie revolves around one who slays such monsters, the second season is about to come out on Netflix, you made TWO Zelda references...……..
And... *NOT ONE CASTLEVANIA REFERENCE????*
jekblom123 I KNOW! I was thinking the same damn thing!
He reviewed Captain N so no one can make the excuse that he doesn't know what Castlevania is!
CallmeJoe and mention it in his Cartoon Openings video
This movei should be a castelvania movie it has some references but the script is so lazy that they dont use it correct.
If it was only van helsing in the castle of dracula finding this monsters inside and dracula having a plan to copy all them in a army would be a better movie tham this one. Because istead of travelyng they could develop characters and plot
6:50, Literally anyone who plays enough of the Ezio Saga in Assassin's Creed will recognize that phrase instantly.